This page is within the scope ofWikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage ofIndia-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
I've observed that many users often refer toWP:ICTFSOURCES when assessing the reliability of sources used in articles related to Indian films/actors. I believe it's time to completely update the current list located at WP:ICTFSOURCES. Many of the sources listed there are involved in press releases, paid branding, and brand posts. Thelast discussion on this matter took place eight years ago, and within this timeframe, the credibility of many sources has likely changed. Therefore, I'm initiating a new discussion to update the list. I'm pinging @JavaHurricane as they discussed this matter in the NPP discord channel a few months ago. I'm also pinging users who participated in the previous discussion for their input. @Bollyjeff, @Cyphoidbomb. –DreamRimmer (talk)08:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Most of the sources are biased and paid. A certain concrete guideline must be set and preferably an RfC must be done to single out the actual tracker websites.Also, I should add that in down South, such tracker websites do not exist. Sites such as Pinkvilla only track the movies only if the movie makes headlines. Hence, that should also be kept in mind. The discrepancies between the actual collections and the publicized collections by the producers have caused multiple edit wars in many pages, especially in Malayalam movie pages. So, if we can get a consensus on that, it would be great. Thanks.The Herald (Benison) (talk)13:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, I am starting this RfC for the abovementioned reason – to analyse the authenticity and reliability of current ICTFSOURCES, and to reassess and update the sources enlisted. Thanks.The Herald (Benison) (talk)07:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Herald, I plan to share my detailed thoughts when I have a bit more free time. In the meantime, would you mind listing the sources we typically use and sharing your opinion on each? This would be really helpful for streamlining the process and finding even better sources. –DreamRimmer (talk)14:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer:, shall we revisit this RfC this weekend? Summer box office need a good guideline and pointers. What I was thinking is, let's just pick apart the ones under reliable section and scrutinize every single one and try to reach a consensus. A level 3 heading for each, which will help future editors to link faster and search faster. Savvy?The Herald (Benison) (talk)03:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have startedan essay for better source analysis, which when completed, can incorporate this RfC results and can be transcluded into the page, or can even be made as an opinion/guideline essay. I am thinking of a table likeWP:RS/P in alphabetical order for faster and easier navigation. Anyone can drop by and help out with suggestions or edits. Thanks and happy editing.The Herald (Benison) (talk)08:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please do not edit the verdict line when there is no clear consensus inRS/P, or onRS/N or any talk pages. Only the clear consensus discussions are deemed automatically reliable.
I see this being added to pages on the same day the articles come out. Gives me the impression of possible COI. Regardless, there seems to be discussion that it is not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk)01:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Herald:, is there a time period for commenting you are hoping for? Wondering if some of these such as those discussed already at RSN should be added to the list. --CNMall41 (talk)05:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a specific time period in my mind. But the ones who's reliability or unreliability is established, we can close the subsection and add it to the list. Ideally, an uninvolved editor should close, so maybe we can ping some admin or someone who's active here for that.The Herald (Benison) (talk)05:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted onWP:RSN to get verdict on these sources moviecrow.com, 123telugu.com, Indiaglitz.com, cinejosh.com, behindwoods.com, thesouthfirst.com, latestly.com. Still what you think of these sources?@CNMall41:@The Herald:RangersRus (talk)14:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too have doubt about cinejosh.com but also for moviecrow.com (does not have any information on this site about the company. Maybe a blog or personal site). 123telugu.com has been considered unreliable for boxoffice numbers and as a whole siteunreliable but had no final stance to completely put it on the unreliable list. Indiaglitz also has nothing on the company information and the contact us link takes you to homepage. This too seems a personal site or a blog. Others too I have doubts.RangersRus (talk)15:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
123Telugu can be used for general film-related updates and independent interviews. This site have many articles that are related to smaller Telugu films doesn't have in the mainline media.Jayanthkumar123 (talk)16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically BOLNEWS which is used400+ times as a reference on Wikipedia. Cannot find editorial standards so unsure if reliable or not. Although the network is out of Pakistan, it has many references for Indian and other non-Pakistani cinema.--CNMall41 (talk)03:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per BOI'sAbout us page, "The figures on the website are not taken from producers or distributors of the respective films but independent estimates from our sources and then cross checked through cinema collections." If true, this suggests that they're not acting as mouthpieces for the production companies (i.e. acting as aprimary source by proxy).Archive
In mid-2019 we discovered that BOI's budget figures included print and advertising costs. (Seethis discussion) Worldwide, when people reference a film's budget, they mean the production budget, i.e. the cost of making the film, not the cost of marketing it. So we should try to find a better source for budget than Box Office India. If we have no choice but to use BOI, then we should include notes that clarify that the budget figure is not consistent with other figures. Ex: "(Note: this figure includes print and advertising costs.)" or similar.
Now, this is still true because we still have no other proper tracker website for Indian movies, especially Bollywood. Biased or not, the BO figures are almost close to the reported verified amount. So I'll put this one as areliable source.The Herald (Benison) (talk)07:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Herald I completely agree with the above. There was also adiscussion in which the credibility of BoxOfficeIndia.com was questioned for South films. However, since the user was identified as a sockpuppet, it can only be seen as an attempt to discredit BoxOfficeIndia.com rather than the other way around.Anoop Bhatia (talk)05:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to watch for (and maybe we just need a disclaimer if the overall source is found to be reliable) is anything marked as written by "DC Correspondent." These are contributor posts and often have a disclaimer that they have not been vetted by editorial staff. --CNMall41 (talk)09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up at RSN a while back but only had one comment. It is being used a few hundred times as a reference but do not see it as being reliable. Bringing it here since it seems to have a lot of film references and we are addressing many of them now. --CNMall41 (talk)03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is used over2000 times as a reference on Wikipedia.Here is their about page. I do not see editorial oversight and sounds more like TMZ in my opinion. Just at first glance I think it could be used maybe to verify basic information such as film roles but nothing for notability. --CNMall41 (talk)03:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Used800+ times in Wikipedia. Note that it is NOT overseen by Forbes editorial staff. It is (what I believe) branded as Forbes (likely from licensing agreement). It is actually owned byNetwork 18. It is used as a reference in many film and actor pages.--CNMall41 (talk)03:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience with press release work, Hindustan Times stands out as a prominent website for publishing paid brand posts. It's crucial to note that any article lacking a specific author shouldn't be relied upon. Furthermore, it's advisable to avoid using articles with a disclaimer or those tagged as brand posts. –DreamRimmer (talk)11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been cleaning some of these up. I am also finding there are quite a few paid posts from other sites on those Wikipedia pages and sent three to AfD already. I would actually lean towards saying only using HT with staff written articles for verification of basic facts (release dates, etc.) and NOT for notability. And NEVER using anything that is paid, branded, no-byline, or otherwise falling under NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk)02:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't included disclaimers in all of their Impact Feature articles, but there are some instances where disclaimers have been added to articles. "Disclaimer: The contents herein are for informational purposes only. If you have any queries, you should directly reach out to the advertiser. India Today Group does not guarantee, vouch for, endorse any of its contents and hereby disclaims all warranties, express or implied, relating to the same."
This is clearly the case; also note that the people in the byline at the bottom of the page will typically come back with marketing positions in the company. I've updated my entryhere and will be happy to help remove these.SamKuru(talk)11:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently17 uses of Outlook India "business spotlight." I believe the publication would be reliable OUTSIDE of that but these are paid-for articles. I would support reliability but maybe a note in the box that says those marked as "business spotlight" or sponsored should not be used as a reference (in the process of removing the 17 I linked to above once I get the time). --CNMall41 (talk)06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With an editorial team and a published editorial policy, as well as an affiliate disclosure, Pinkvilla.com can be deemedreliable due to their reportings to be very close to the actual BO figures and other film related news. But, I'll still stay clear of the gossip section.The Herald (Benison) (talk)07:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Rediff.com might be the oldest Indian website that carried some news and email services in early Indian internet services days, but they were the primary business creators with 2MB webhosting for Rs 2800. Rediff.com initially published many fake interviews beforeTehelka was founded.SaTnamZIN (talk)15:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this up at RSN a few months back. Looks like auto generated content from Twitter and also possibly paid. I would suggest adding this as an unreliable source.
Similar to thenote on Outlook India above, First Post has sponsored content marked as "brand wagon" (often included in the URL as well). I have no comment on the reliability of the overall publication but will say the branded posts should not be used in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk)06:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DNA is already added in the RfC above. I'd say while we are at it, let's review all the sources. India.com is deemed unreliable perthis discussion. So, that's out. I don't know other publications under them. If there are any that are used frequently, by all means add them to the miscellaneous category below.The Herald (Benison) (talk)06:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdict
In addition to the aforementioned sources, the following references are also brought up multiple times and are used in various pages.
According to their website (About us page), they apparently use 4 sources; Hindustan Times, Film Companion, Live Mint and Desi Martini, of which HT and Mint are reliable per RSP and RSN. Desi Martini is a partner site for HT. Film Companion, I'm not so sure cuz the page doesn't mention anywhere about their sources or their origin or history, hence sounds dubious. But other than that, OTTPlay.com should belong in the reliable side of the spectrum.The Herald (Benison) (talk)06:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am coming across this one quite a bit when sourcing filmographies. I think the main issue I have is that it is a commercial website and they benefit from aggregating news. A lot of the articles are bylined "Team OTTplay" so not sure if these are coming from the reliable sources or if they are original content from that site. --CNMall41 (talk)00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say reviews are notable but OTT release information isn't since it is compiled from many sources.@Kailash29792: Sorry, if you are mad at me for removing the reviews. Once this reaches a consensus, you can re-add them.@Manick22: Thoughts?DareshMohan (talk)05:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DareshMohan, I'm not mad at you for removing the reviews. Just confused because I thought it was previously agreed upon as RS due to HT Media owning it. But I agree that OTT release information can be obtained from better sources.Kailash29792(talk)07:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per RS/PThe Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. That puts TOI in either unreliable or no consensus region. It is generally unreliable for box office figures since I have seen them using Sacnilk.com and promotional figures a lot. They may be reliable for news articles, but IMO it all should be taken with a pinch of salt.The Herald (Benison) (talk)05:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found another subsection with containing Lifesyle/Spotlight on The Times of India, this subsection is cited 185 times without drafts and 193 times with drafts. I found a article on the same subsection which contain a disclaimer “The article has been produced on behalf of Globsyn Business” but other articles majorly does not contain any disclaimer.
Trendingtopicc.com is not a reliable source for citing budget or box office collection figures. The website lacks transparency regarding its ownership, editorial processes, or methodology for calculating box office data. Without a clear framework or evidence of how its numbers are obtained and verified, the site cannot be trusted as a credible source of financial information. Additionally, Trendingtopicc.com does not provide details about its contributors or their qualifications, further raising doubts about the authenticity and accuracy of the information it publishes. Unlike industry-recognized trackers, such as Box Office India, or reputed publications, this site has no established credibility in the field of film journalism. Using its data may lead to the dissemination of unverified or exaggerated claims, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBolly ka Badshah (talk •contribs) 08:22, December 18, 2024 (UTC)
I think this site is unreliable for anything. It appears to just be a slideshow of tweets. I'm confused, though; are you the creator of this site? --Geniac (talk)22:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable as it is owned by Pride East Entertainments Private Limited, a prominent media group in Northeast India. The company is headed by Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) Ms. Riniki Bhuyan Sharma. Wasbir Hussain (Editor-in-Chief): A veteran journalist, author, and television talk show host who directs the editorial content for Northeast Live. Syed Zarir Hussain (VP - Media, Prideeast Group): Involved in the leadership of the media group that runs Northeast Live and News Live. With confirmed ownership and staff, its a reliable source.RangersRus (talk)14:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have created a shortcutWP:ICTFSA (Yes, a pun onessay andSource Analysis as well). More sources can be added onto it from ICTFFAQ or after consensus from here or RSN. Thanks.The Herald (Benison) (talk)04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N
Y
.svg)
